Expectations, Descriptions, and Names

The power of player perception, and what it takes to manage it. (reupload)

This is a bit of a shorter one than before, but I've found it interesting how many times I've seen the release of a system or a new piece of content within a system be met with hostility, even long after initial exposure, due to some breakdown in understanding for what something is meant to be.

What do I mean by this? I'll use a couple of examples, one old and one new, from Pathfinder 2e. Funnily enough, they're both from the Cleric class:
The Warpriest doctrine, right from the start, focused on being more defensible than its Cloistered counterpart at the cost of some of its spellcasting potency, and was long derided as a cheap, unsatisfying alternative. In what I've heard from those who disliked it, this is mostly due to a miscommunication that starts with the name. People expected a Cleric capable of "war"; a damage-dealer and front-line fighter. What the subclass actually was (and remains, to this day) is a way to massively improve your survivability on the front lines, not necessarily your damage-dealing capability or even combative prowess. Not that it doesn't have any of that, but it's ultimately secondary to the Warpriest's attempt to emulate an old-school mace-and-shield, chainmail Clerical role in a party. You retain your full spellcasting suite, and the fact that the spells are weaker incentivises your focus further towards protective aspects of your character, honing in on a utility and support role without the cloth caster trappings of low AC and health.
The Battle Harbinger, recently released in Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries, seems to be going down a similar pipeline, at least if the initial reactions I've seen online are in any way representative of general attitude (which they aren't always). The Battle Harbinger gives up not only their spellcasting potency, but most of their suite, and in return gains combative efficacy- ability to hit enemies with a weapon. But they don't gain any significant damage boosts, and their "Battle Auras" (buffing or debuffing auras they can cast and sustain with their unique feats) are still resource-limited by their spellcasting resources (though retain full, or even better, potency than standard spellcasting). Battle Harbinger's role ends up being one of offensive support, and notably still not damage. They can hit with the best of them, but they don't receive the damage-dealing bonuses that are crucial to the "standard martials" damage-dealing roles- and this is pretty clearly intentional, due to their ability to use scrolls and significantly buff themselves and their teammates. Yet, player reaction has skewed negative. What do you mean the Battle Harbinger can't hit as hard as a full martial?

People end up missing the playstyle and role defined and supported for these subclasses, instead projecting their own desires for the name or the concept onto it and being disappointed when it doesn't pan out. I'm left wondering what's more important here when it comes to player response- the name, the flavour text, or the mechanics themselves. And I think it might be skewed towards name and flavour text more than one would assume. Would the responses have been the same were the subclasses named "Heavily Armoured Support Cleric" and "Rallying Offensive Support Cleric"? They're certainly less evocative names than "Warpriest" and "Battle Harbinger". Where does one draw the line on these things?
Ultimately, this will all be up to the writer to weigh and decide. But it's worth thinking about next time you name or describe something- what image are you trying to present? What image might your chosen words conjure? If there's dissonance between the two, is it worth conceding ground to mend that gap?

Little bits of TTRPG and player philosophy like this are what I live for when I'm not considering the mechanics themselves. May your quests be fruitful, friends.